ATHAR MINALLAH, C.J.--- An important question of public importan ce has been raised in the petition in hand; whether the National Database and Regis tration Authority has the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate and interfere with the paternity incorporated in the Computerized National Identity Card issued under section 10 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 without the consent of the holder of the card and in the absence of a declaration made by a competent court.
2. The petitioner , namely Urooj Tabani, daughter of Muhammad Yaqoob-T abani (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner' ) has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Constitution ') because she is aggrieved from the action of the National Database and Registration Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority ') whereby the latter has impounded her Computerized National Identity Card (hereinafter referred to as 'CNIC ') besides excluding her from the family tree.
3. The Petitioner was born on 17-05-1993. Her paternity i.e. the name of the biological father was shown as 'Muhammad Yaqoob Tabani (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No.3' ) in the record of the hospital. The same paternity was recorded in her birth certificate. The mother of the Petitioner , namely Ms. Firdous Fatima, alias Dolly , daughter of Israr Hussain, filed a Family Suit No.1114/93 against Respondent No.3, namely Muhammad Yaqoob Tabani, seeking a decree for maintenance , delivery expenses and dower amountin g to Rs.500,000/-. The suit was filed before one of the learned Family Courts in Karachi. The mother of the Petitioner had asserted in the plaint that she had married Respondent No. 3 on 14-02-1989 and that the Petitioner was born out of the wedlock. A separate suit was filed by one Khalid Mehmood seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights because he asserted to be the husband of the Petitioner's mother . The suit of the latter was initially decreed but subsequently it was set aside by the learned Sindh High Court, which attained finality because it was not overturned by the apex Court. It appears from the material placed on record that the story had attracted the attention of the print media.
Respondent No. 3 filed Family Suit No.521/1994 seeking a decree for jactitation of marriage. The Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings relating to the said suit because she was not impleaded as a defendant nor any relief was sought to her extent. The Petiti oner, at the time, was about one year old. A plain reading of the plaint of the jactitation suit shows that Respondent No.3 had admitted to knowing the mother of the Petitioner . The plaint referred to a telegram sent by the grandfather of the Petitioner to the Chief Justice of the learned Sindh High Court.
The plaint also had reference to the recor d of the hospital where the Petitioner was born. It appears from the record that, while the proceedings in the aforementioned suits were pending, the mother of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 entered into a settlement and, pursuant thereto, the suit for jactitation of marriage was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 21-09-1999. The mother of the Petitioner did not press her suit and, therefore, it was accordingly dismissed. The terms and conditions of the settlement between the mother of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 were not brought on the record nor made part of the judgment and decree, dated 21-09-1999. The record further shows that the mother of the Petitioner entered into a marriage contract in 1999 with one Muhammad Azam Khan.
One of the documents attached by Respondent No. 3 with his written reply indicates that a property was also purchased in the name of the Petitioner's mother in 2000 but there is no explanation as to how and why such private documents should have been in the possession of the former . The Deputy Commissioner Karachi-East had issued the certificate of domicile in favour of the Petitioner wherein the name of her father was recorded as that of Respondent No. 3.The Petitioner has attached with her memorandum of petition copies of educational testimonials/certificates/degrees i.e the Higher Secondary School Certificate and Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi, wherein her paternity is shown as that of Respondent No. 3.
Respondent No. 3 has also attached copies of documents with his written reply/comments to establish otherwise.
However , it is the case of Respondent No. 3 that the recording of his name was a fraudulent act. The Petitioner , after attaining the age of 18 years, applied to the Authority on 13-12-201 1 for the issuance of a CNIC. The Authority accepted the application and issued CNIC No.42201-8685851-6 in favour of the Petitioner . At a much later stage the Authority appears to have issued a notice under section 23 of the National Data base and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ordinance of 2002 '), dated 27-08-2013 alleging that the Petitioner had obtained the CNIC through unfair means. Since necessary details were not mentioned in the notice, therefore, the Petitioner vide letter , dated 26-09-2013, sought information from the Authority . The CNIC of the Petitioner was 'impounded' and she was segregated from the family tree, as stated in paragraph 5 of the reply submitted by the Authority . The CNIC was impounded without complying with the mandatory requirements of due process. The Petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'Ombudsman ') and, vide order dated 30-01-2018, the matter was disposed of. The order show s that documents such as birth, domicile and educational certificates where submitted, wherein the name of Respondent No. 3 was recorded as father of the Petitioner . An undertaking was given on behalf of the Authority that the grievance of the Petitioner would be redressed and, therefore, the complaint was closed under Regulation 23(1)(f) of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Investigations and Disposal of Complaints) Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'Regulations of 2013 '). The Authority , and not the Respondent No. 3, subsequently filed a review petition under Regulation 26 of the Regulations of 2013, praying for the recalling of the order dated 20-03-2018. It appears, from the record, that without notice to the Petiti oner and on the basis of the judgment and decree, dated 21-09-1999, the learned Ombudsman recalled the earlier order . The Petitioner thereafter filed the instant constitutional petition, challenging the jurisdiction of the Authority to impound her CNIC by purportedly adjudicating upon the question of her paternity . After hearing the parties, this Court, vide order dated 11-10-2019, directed the Authority by way of an interim relief to unblock the Computerized National Identity Card of the Petiti oner. The Authority , instead of complying with this Court's order , issued a fresh Computerized National Identity Card showing some other person as the Petitioner's father . However , realizing that this Court had not passed such an order , the Authority unblocked and restored the Petitioner's original CNIC.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that; the Authority has acted malafidely and without jurisdiction; the Authority is bereft of adjudicating the paternity of the Petitioner; the Authority is not empowered to adjudicate disputed and contentious questions requiring recording of evidence; the Authority had no locus standi to seek review of the order passed by the learned Ombudsman; Respondent No.3 i.e. Muhammad Yaqoob Tabani, had never challenged those public and other documents relating to the Petitioner wherein his name was recorded as the latter's father; the domicile certificate and the educational certificates issued by the competent 'forums are public documents and a presumption of truth is attached thereto; the decree in the suit seeking jactitation of marriage has no consequences in so far as the paternity of the Petitioner is concerned; the Authority displayed extra ordinary interest in this case because Respondent No.3 enjoys influence ; the Authority could not have changed the paternity of the Petitioner unless there had been a declaration to this effect by a competent court; adjudication of contentious and disputed questions of fact is outside the scope of the power and jurisdiction vested in the Authority .
5. The learned counsel for Respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the decree in the suit for jactitation of marriage; reliance has also been placed on copies of documents to establish that the paternity recorded therein was different; it has been argued that the Authority had rightly impounded the CNIC and changed the family tree by excluding the name of the Petitioner; the decree of suit for jactitation had conclusively established that the Petitioner was not the daughter of Respondent No. 3.
6. It is noted that the Petitioner had appeared along with her counsel. The Petition er had unequivocally stated that she was prepared to take a DNA test so that the question of paternity is decisively settled. The learned counsel for Respondent No.3 was asked whether the latter was willing accept the suggestion made by the Petitioner . The learned counsel had sought time and on the next date of hearing the Respondent No. 3 did not consent to undergo the DNA test.
7. The learned Law Officer who has appe ared on behalf of the Authority was heard at length. He could not show any notice, other than the vague notice sent in 2013, to satisfy the Court that the mandatory requirements of due process and procedural fairness had been complied with prior to blocking or impounding the Computerized National Identity Card of the Petitioner; In response to a query , the learned counsel conceded that there was nothing on record to show that a declarat ion may have been decreed by a compet ent court regarding the paternity of the Petitioner; the learned counsel relied on the decree passed in the suit of jactitation of marriage and dismissal of the suit filed by the Petitioners mother; it has been argued on behalf of the Authority that it was established during the inquiry proceedings that the Petitioner had obtained CNIC through unfair means and concealment of material facts; the learned counsel's main argument was that the Authority was empowered under section 18 to cancel or impound a Computerized National Identity Card which may have been obtained on the basis of mis- declaration.
8. The learned counsel have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.
9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had applied for the issuance of a CINC in 2011. After processing the application, the Petitioner's CNIC was issued wherein her paternity was recorded as that of Respondent No. 3 i.e. Muhammad Yaqoob Tabani. The Authority , in disregard of the mandatory requirements of due process and procedural fairness, initially blocked the CNIC and later ordered its impounding besides segregating the Petitioner from the family tree. The Authority had acted pursuant to a complaint submitted by Respondent No. 3. Based on documents submitted by the Petitioner and pursuant to the undertaking given on behalf of the Authority , the learned Ombudsman, vide order dated 30-01-2018, disposed of the complaint. Responden t No.3 did not challenge the said order and, instead, the Authority filed a review petition. A plain reading of the review petition shows that the Authority had on its own adjudged the question of the Petitioner's paternity . Was the Authority competent and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputed and contentious question of the Petitioners paternity?
Was the Authority justified in impounding the CNIC and segregating the Petitioner from the family tree in the absence of a declaration by a competent court? Was the decree passed in the suit for jactitation of marriage sufficient for the Authority to impound the CNIC? What are the powers and jurisdiction of the Authority when contentious questions are involved in family disputes, such as the paternity of a citizen? These are the fundamental questions that have arisen out of the arguments ably advanced by the learned counsel at the Bar.
In order to answer these questions it would be beneficial to examine the provisions of the Ordinance of 2000 and the relevant rules/regulations made thereunder.
10. The Ordinance of 2002 was promulgated and notified in the official gazette on 10-03-2000. Its object and purpose, as described in the preamble, was to provide for registration of persons and the establishing and maintenance of databases etc. Section 2 defines various expressions. The Authority has been established under section 3. The functions and powers of the Authority are described in sections 5 and 6. Section 9 makes it an obligation of every citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years, whether in or out of Pakistan, to get himself or herself, as the case may, registered under the Ordinance of 2000. In the case of a citizen who has not attained the aforementioned age, the guardian or a parent is required to get the registration within the specified time.
Section 10 provides that, in the case of a citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years and has been registered under section 9, the Authority shall issue a Computerized National Identity Card to such a person. It is a statutory duty of the Authority to issue or' renew or cause to be issued or renewed a Computerized National Identity Card to every person who is a citizen and has attained the age of 18 years, provided the latter has been registered under section 9 ibid. Section 18 describes the power of the Authority to cancel, impound or confiscate a card issued under the Ordinance of 2000. It has been declared that the card shall be the property of the Federal Government and that it may, by an order in writing and under the seal of the Authority or an officer authorized by it in this behalf, be required to be returned and shall be liable to be cancelled, impounded or confiscated by a like order . The proviso to subsection (1) of section 18 is couched in negative language and provi des that no order shall be made unless the person has been given notice in writing, calling upon him or her to show cause as to why the order should not be made. Subsection (2) explicitly provides that an order under subsection (1) having the effect of cancelling, impounding or confiscating a card may be made only if there is reason to believe that:--
(a) The card has been obtained by a person who is not eligible to hold such card, by posing himself as eligible;
(b) More than one card have been obtained by the same person on the same eligibility criteria;
(c) The particulars shown on the card have been obliterated or tampered with; or
(d) The card is forged.
Moreover , section 23 empowers the Authority or any person authorized by it in this behalf to require a person who has given any information to furnish such documentary or other evidence of the truth of that information as it is within the power of that person to furnish.
11. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 45 of the Ordinance of 2002 read with subsection (3) of section 9, the Authority has issued the National Database and Registration Authority (Application for National Identity Card) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 2002 '). Likewise, in exercise of powers conferred under section 44 of the Ordinance of 2000, the Federal Government has made the National Database and Registration Authority (National Identity Card) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2002' ). Rule 13 thereof provides for the manner in which a change in the card can be incorporated by the Authority .
12. A combined reading of the Ordinance of 2002, the Rules of 2002 and the Regulations of 2002 shows that the Authority has been established for a specific purpose i.e. to register persons and to maintain the databases etc. The different categories of cards and the criteria for eligibility of each have been described under distinct provisions. For the adjudication of the petition in hand, the discussion will be confined to the Computerized National Identity Card because of its relevance. The eligibility criterion for issuance of the card has already been discussed above i.e. a citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years and has been registered under section 9. After issuance of the card, its particulars can only be modified, altered or changed in accordance with the procedure and fulfillment of requirements described under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2002. There is no cavil to the proposition that the presumption of truth is attached with the card and the particulars recorded therein. The scheme of the Ordinance of 2000, read with the Rules of 2002, envisages registration and then issuance of the card on the basis of information and documents submitted by the applicant. The alteration, modific ation or changes in an already issued card are also pursuant to an application filed by the holder thereof. Section 18 empowers the Authority to cancel, impound or confiscate, subject to the happening of the eventualities described in clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (2) ibid. The legislature has explicitly confined the power vested under section 18(1) to the four grounds described under section 18(2). Moreover , exercising the power is subject to fulfillment of the requirements of due process i.e. issuance of a show cause notice. However , if disputed and contentious questions are involved, which require the recording of evidence, then there is no provision in the Ordinance of 2000 empowering the Authority to adjudicate the matter . In such an eventuality the complaining person will have to obtain a declaration from a competent court and then have the decree executed in the manner provided under the law. The Authority is definitely not empowered to adjudicate upon family disputes such as determination of paternity etc. Once a card has been issued then the incorporated particulars can only be changed, modified or altered in accordance with the manner prescribed under rule 13 of the Rules of 2002. The said rule does not entitle a third party to have the particulars changed. Nonetheless, changes or modifications can be made in execution of a decree or order passed by a competent court. Likewise a card can be blocked pursuant to an order by a competent court e.g. in the case of a person declared as an absconder under the law .
13. In the case in hand, on attaining the age of eighteen years the Authority , in exercise of powers conferred under section 10, issued the CNIC because it was satisfied that the Petitioner had fulfilled the eligibility criterion. The paternity of the Petitioner was shown as that of Respondent No. 3. The releva nt documents submitted by the Petitioner and the family tree also supported the claim that Respondent No. 3 was her father . The latter did not seek a declaration from a competent court regarding the claim of the Petitioner that she was his daughter . He also did not make any attempt to seek a decree for removal of his name from nume rous documents issued by the competent authorities and official forums. The mother of the Petitioner filed a suit and, separately , representations were also sent to the Chief Justice of the learned Sindh High Court. Respondent No. 3 had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage and it was decreed on the basis of settlement between the contes ting parties. The Petitioner was barely seven years old. She was neither a party to the proceedings relating to the suit nor was a declaration regarding her paternity made. It also appears from the record that Respondent No. 3 was evading challenging the paternity of the Petitioner . However , the Authority entertained his complaint and impounded the CNIC and segregated the Petitioner from the family tree. It was at best a case of incorporation of a change in the card but the Authority appears to have taken upon itself the responsibility of adjudicating the question of paternity . The Authority had solely relied on the decree of jactitation of marriage and some unverified documents submitted by Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner was condemned unheard because a reasonable opport unity was not afforded to her.
Nonetheless, after her denial of the claim of Respondent No. 3, the Authority was left with no option except to ask the latter to obtain a declaration from a competent court. The unusual interest of the Authority in the matter of the Petitioner's paternity was also obvious from the filing of the review against the order passed by the learned Ombudsman. Respondent No. 3 had not challenged the proceedings before the learned Ombudsman that had culminated in the passing of the order dated 30-01-2018. Was the decree dated 21-09-1999, passed in the suit for jactitation of marriage, a conclusive decla ration to give a finding of fact that the paternity declared by the Petitioner at the time of obtaining her CNIC amounted to unfair means or misrepresentation? The answer is an emphatic NO.
14. The Black's Law Dictionory , Eighth Edition, defines the expression 'jactitation of marriage' as follows; "jactitation of marriage . Hist.
1. False and actionable boasting or claiming that one is married to another .
2. An action against a person who falsely boasts of being married to the complainant.
"Jactitation of marriage is a cause of action which arises when a person falsely alleges that he or she is married to the petitioner , and the remedy sought is a perpetual injunction against the respondent to cease making such allegations. The cause is now uncommon in English municipal law and almost unknown in the conflict of laws."
R.H. Graveson, Conflict of Laws 349 (7th ed. 1974). "
15. The silencing of a false assertion relating to marriage is through a suit for jactitation of marriage. The august Supreme Court, in the case titled 'Matloob Hussain v. Mst. Shahida and 2 others ' [PLD 2006 SC 489], has observed and held that the Family Court under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1964') has the exclusive jurisdiction subject to the Family Laws Ordin ance, 1961 and the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 to entertain and adjudicate upon the matters specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1964, which includes a suit for jactitation of marriage. Reference may also be made to the cases reported as `Irshad Ahmad v. Muhammad Sharif and another {PLD 2006 Lahore 260] and Rabia Akhter and another v.
Muhammad Ayub and 2 others' [2013 MLD 16 ]. Paternity is not included in the Schedule to the Act of 1964.
16. 'Paternity' refers to the state of being a father or fatherhood. Paternity is not necessarily linked to a valid marriage because a child can be born even out of wedlock. Knowing a father's identity becomes crucial for multiple reasons. The identity of an individual depends on the accurate determination of parentage. The importance of parentage to a child or even an adult cannot be overstated. Knowing ones biological father's identity has a nexus with the emotional and psychological needs of a person. Denying such knowledge could have profound consequences in the context of quality of life and thus breach the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. Every person, therefore, has a right to know the identity of his or her biological father . The knowledge of paternity is crucial because it is relatable to self esteem, identity , respect in the society and privacy . It is, therefore, also an integral part of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 14 i.e inviolability of.dignity of a person. The august Supreme Court, in the case reported as `Mst. Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum and others'
[PLD 2019 SC 449], has observed that knowledge of parentage is crucial in order to ensure that quality of life is not compromised. In the case titled Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Mehr Ghulam Dastagir Khan and another' [PLD 2015 SC 327] the august Supreme Court has observed and held that when the question regarding paternity is involved in a suit then it would be fatal if the person/child, who would be affected by the declaration is not impleaded as a party . A child or person cannot be condemned without giving the latter an opportunity of defending through a proper and fair trial. It has been further observed that a mother is irrelevant for the purpose of a paternity test. Moreover , it is settled law that the question of paternity cannot be determined or adjudicated by a Family Court nor a Guardian Judge. It can only be entertained and adjudicated upon by a civil court. Reliance is placed on Kishwar Parveen and others v. District Judge, Gujrat and others' [PLD 2016 Lahore 536], `Iftikhar Hussain and another v.
Muhammad Aslam and others' [1991 MLD 1500 ], `Mst. Aziz Begum v. Faiz Muhammad' [PLD 1965 Lahore 399], `Zala Din and another v. Muslim Shah' [PLD 1968 Peshawar 87]. In the case titled 'Muhammad Nazir and others v. Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others' [2003 SCMR 1183] the apex Court has observed that the law leans in favour of the presumption of paternity rather than illegitimacy unless proved by strong evidence.
The paternity of a registered person, once incorporated in a Computerized National Identity Card, cannot be disputed unless the person challenging it has obtained a declaration from a competent civil court. The consequences of disputing a card holder's paternity are profound. The latter is exposed to unimaginable vilification without fault for the rest of his or her life. The paternity is of such immense importance to a human that it cannot be disputed unless the person challenging it has established it otherwise on the basis of strong evidence and through a fair trial before a competent court.
17. In the light of the above discussion relating to the distinction between a suit for jactitation of marriage and a declaration regarding paternity , the Authority had acted recklessly and that too without jurisdiction. As already noted, the legislature has explicitly specified the grounds in subsection (2) of section 18 of the Ordinance of 2000 in order to exercise the power to cancel, impound or confiscate a card issued under one of the provisions ibid. The Authority can exercise the aforementioned power solely on the basis of the eventualities expressly described in clauses (a) to (d) of section 18(2). It is further noted that the Authority is not empowered to adjudicate upon intricate disputed questions of fact which would require recording of evidence. For example, in the case in hand, the action of the Authority was pursuant to the comp laint of Respondent No. 3. The latter had challenged the presumption of paternity incorporated in the CNIC issued in favour of the Petitioner . This was vehemently denied by the Petitioner .
The proceedings of the Authority were influenced by the decree passed in the suit for jactitation of marriage. The Petitioner was not a party in those E proceedings and, even otherwise, the decre e had no relevance whatsoever with the question of paternity . Since the birth of the Petitioner , Respondent No. 3 did not challenge her paternity before a competent court. His obvious hesitation in taking a DNA test is also not understandable. While he remained elusive in challenging the paternity, the Authority appeared to have been bending over backwards by indirectly acting on his behalf and disputing the identity of the Petitioner and, that too, in the absence of a declaration by a competent court. The Authority had no jurisdiction under the Ordinance of 2000 to entertain and adjudicate upon the disputed claim of Respondent No. 3 which involved intricate questions and could not have been resolved without recording of eviden ce during a proper and fair trial conducted by a competent civil court. The Authority is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon contested family disputes. The Authority , by acting recklessly , had definitely caused unimaginable agony and pain to the disputing it recklessly , the Authority , besides acting without jurisdiction, Petitioner . Paternity is one of the most valuable human rights and by had violated the constitutionally guaranteed rights protecte d under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. The unprofessional conduct of the Authority observed in the case in hand is deprecated. In response to the complaint of Respondent No. 3, the Authority ought to have advised him to seek a declaration from a competent civil court instead of volunteering to have become an adjudicator without having jurisdiction to do so.
18. It has been argued that, since a right of appeal is provided against the order passed by the Authority , therefore, the constitutional petition was not mainta inable. This argument is without force in the light of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court in the cases titled `Lt. -Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty and others ' [PLD 1961 SC 119], 'Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-II and another v.
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wad), Karachi ' [PLD 1992 SC 847], `Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore' [PLD 1996 SC 246], 'Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Cust oms, Customs House, Lahore' [1999 SCMR 1881 ], 'Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore. and 3 others v. Messrs S.M. Ahmed and Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad ' [1999 SCMR 138], and `Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messers Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.' [2009 SCMR 1279 ]. The order , dated 26-10-2018, was passed by the Authority wholly without authority and jurisdiction, in a perfunctory manner and in breach of the principles of due process and procedural fairness.
19. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders and proceedings are declared illegal, void, without lawful authority and jurisdiction. It is declared that the Authority is not vested with the power and jurisdiction to, directly or indirectly , adjudicate upon or interfere with intricate contested family disputes, including paternity . In. such eventualities a change in the particulars incorporated in a card issued under the Ordinance of 2000 shall be subject to a declaration by a competent court. The CNIC of the petitioner shall be restored and the change of paternity shall be subject to a declaration by a competent civil court. By disputing the paternity of the Petitioner , the latter must have been exposed to unimaginable pain, agony and emotional distress as well as psychological trauma. The illegal, void and without jurisdiction proceedings and orders, pursuant to the complaint of Respondent No. 3, had compelled the Petitioner to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The litigation cost is solely because of the irresponsible complaint submitted by Respondent No.3 before an incompetent forum, followed by the reckless proceedings and 'orders passed by the Authority , without having jurisdiction under the Ordinance of 2000.
20. This Court, in the judgment reported as 'Major (Retd.) Ahmed Nadeem Sadal and 3 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Sports, Islamabad and 3 others ' [2015 CLC (Islamabad) 34], has highlighted the principles and law laid down by the august Supreme Court regarding the power and jurisdiction of a High Court to impose costs while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. This Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled to payment of exemplary costs by the Authority and the Respondent No. 3. It is, therefore, ordered that cost of Rs 500,000/-each is hereb y imposed on the Authority and Respondent No. 3 to be paid to the Petitioner . They are directed to deposit the imposed costs with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within thirty days from the date of announcement of the judgment. The latter , after the deposit of the costs, shall forthwith pay the same to the Petitioner .